This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This course of action was also taken by the Court in a catena of other cases including Go v. Court of Appeals,[58] Yusop v. Sandiganbayan,[59] Rodis, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan,[60] and Agustin v. People.[61] | |||||
|
2014-02-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Section 3(d), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, allows Prosecutor Vivero to resolve the complaint based on the evidence before him if a respondent could not be subpoenaed. As long as efforts to reach a respondent were made, and he was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, the preliminary investigation remains valid.[100] The rule was put in place in order to foil underhanded attempts of a respondent to delay the prosecution of offenses.[101] | |||||